Recommended Links

The God of Independent Minds

Is religion the enemy of reason? A look at the questioning, disobedient heroes of the Old Testament

This is a version of an essay that has just appeared in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal.To read the original article, click here.

Today’s debates over the place of religion in modern life often showcase the claim that belief in God stifles reason and science. As Richard Dawkins writes in his best-seller The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006) religious belief “discourages questioning by its very nature.” In The End of Faith (Norton, 2004), his own New Atheist manifesto, Sam Harris writes that religion represents “a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible.”

The argument that religion suppresses rational inquiry is often based on the idea that “reason” and “revelation” are opposites. On this view, shared by atheist crusaders and some believers as well, the whole point of the Bible is to provide divine knowledge for guiding our lives, so that we don’t need questioning and independence of mind.

This dichotomy between reason and revelation has a great deal of history behind it, but I have never accepted it. In fact, as an Orthodox Jew, I often find the whole discussion quite frustrating. I will let Christians speak for their own sacred texts, but in the Hebrew Bible (or “Old Testament”) and the classical rabbinical sources that are the basis for my religion, one of the abiding themes is precisely the ever-urgent need for human beings, if they are to find what is true and just, to maintain their capacity for independent thought and action.

Almost every major hero and heroine of the Hebrew Bible is depicted as independent-minded, disobedient, even contentious. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Joseph’s brothers, Moses and Aaron, Gideon and Samuel, prophets such as Elijah and Elisha, and exilic biblical figures such as Daniel, Mordechai and Esther—all are portrayed as confronting authority and breaking the laws and commands of kings. And for this they are praised.

But aren’t these biblical figures just disobeying human institutions in response to commands from on high? Not at all. Very often the disobedience we see in Hebrew Scripture is initiated by human beings with no word from God at all. Thus the midwives Shifra and Pua resist Pharaoh’s decree to murder the Israelite children in the Exodus narrative. And Moses’ mother and sister hide the infant boy, although it is against the law. And Moses grows up and slays an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave.

None of these deeds is initiated or guided by divine command. Like many other stories in the Bible, they tell us about human beings who make their stand entirely on their own authority.

Some will want to object that the biblical heroes exhibit such independence of mind only with respect to other human beings, and that they become pushovers when God enters the picture. But that isn’t right either. Many biblical figures dare to extend their arguments and criticism to God himself. Abraham is famous for challenging God over the fate of Sodom: “Will not the judge of all the earth do justice?” Moses repeatedly argues against God’s intention to destroy Israel. David is outraged over what he sees as God’s unjust killing of one of his men. And similar arguments with God appear in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Havakuk, Jonah and Job.

Nor do these biblical figures stop at just arguing with God. They also disobey God. Abel disregards God’s instructions to go work the soil, while his brother Cain obeys—yet it is Abel whom God loves, not Cain. Moses, too, directly disobeys God’s command to lead the people up to Canaan after the sin of the golden calf. Aaron refuses to conduct the sacrificial service as commanded after God kills his two sons. The daughters of Tzelofhad even demand that Moses alter God’s law because they deem it unjust. And in all these cases, the biblical narrative endorses such resistance.

The Bible acknowledges this pattern explicitly when God gives the name “Israel” to Jacob and his descendants, saying: “Your name will no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have contended with God and with men and have prevailed.”

Reread that last sentence. It says that the God of Israel so cherishes independent-minded men and women that he himself names them Israel, meaning “will contend with God,” as a sign of his love and esteem.

The claim that the Hebrew Bible seeks to suppress inquiry and argument can be maintained only by way of colossal ignorance or willful distortion. In fact, no literary tradition of the pre-modern world—including Greek philosophy—was so effortlessly radical in its endorsement of human questioning, seeking and argument. And few have rivaled it in modernity either.

Perhaps it is time for the participants in the great “religion wars” of our day to give the Hebrew Bible another read.

For more information about The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture (Cambridge University Press, August 28, 2012) gohere.To pre-order the book, click here.To subscribe to follow the book by email, clickhere.

are you suggesting that dawkins and harris are really just following in the footsteps of abraham and job: questoining god's authority, justice, commands, maybe even his existence?

Avi Elnekave

August 30, 2012

None

Dear Mr. Hazoni,

I enjoyed reading this article about RELIGION and REASON (or as I would put it ACTING and CRITICAL THINKING). The discussion stems from a profound בלבול מושגים. Therefore we need to define first what we mean when we use each of the terms as the definitions are not self-understood.

RELIGION is not FAITH. These are terms that define two different things. Religion is the sum of [u]rituals[/u] that a person who is religious performs regularly every day, week, month, and year. FAITH is the profound belief that a revelation has/is a [u]reality[/u]. It is true when we talk about miracles or the EXISTENCE of a deity - be it pagan or otherwise.

Having said that, it is clear that in order to be religious one does not have to be a believer or have faith...

What has happened along the years is that the belief that GOD gave the laws to Humans through Moses, who passed it on t, has been instilled in the thoughts of those who are “religious” in religious tradition. Instilling this belief was necessary in order to give the laws their AUTHORITY, otherwise they would not be followed rigorously.

Jewish (biblical) law is a set of values /rules that enable a civilized and respectful social life. The most characteristic image of Jewish law is revealed in Exodus, chapter 20, 2 - 17; the TEN COMMANDMENTS, all nine of which are laws that pertain to the relations among human beings and only ONE of them (verses 2 - 7) is related to GOD: “Thou shalt have no other gods before ME” and what follows is none other than an introduction /"description" of this ONE GOD.

In fact, those who promoted the approach of no "questioning,/ no reasoning" were individuals (regardless of their religion or creed) who wanted to control masses through instilling fear/ anxiety before the wrath of the deity in case of disobedience.

Judaism never stifled critical thinking or reasoning – on the contrary... You said it better than I, so I will not repeat your article.

This article in which there are several instances of biblical opposition to the word of G-d, suggests that our religion is so adaptable that a great many changes and developments are possible. Yet as we both know perfectly well, there are somewhat close limits outside of which orthodox Judism cannot stray. In addition, tradition and belief are so mixed that (as outsiders) we cannot say for sure that any fraction of orthodox behaviour is the more correct. Even with reform or liberal versions there are definate limits. So my question is: are you suggesting that we should all deliberately find some part of our faith that is unfriendly to our private wishes and then rebel against it, by challenging G-d?

I am very aware that in practice everybody who is a Jew in spirit, actually follows the parts of the faith which are convenient to him/her, and avoids the parts which are not. This firstly allows for the 3 denominations of Jews mentioned above, but it goes further than this and in practice results in a sort of "half-pork"rule applying to much of what we (the less-orthodox or otherwise) actually do in the way of religious observance! Is this what you are referring to, or should there be some new standards set so that one can be classed as being observant only to level 5b(ii) etc?